Ruby 1.9 does not work with rails. My ruby1.9 cannot work with rails and produces an error message about == and >= so why not remove these ? In activesupport/lib/active_support module ActiveSupport is the following module ActiveSupport if defined? ::BasicObject class BasicObject < ::BasicObject undef_method :== undef_method :equal? # Let ActiveSupport::BasicObject at least raise exceptions. def raise(*args) ::Object.send(:raise, *args) end end else require 'blankslate' BasicObject = BlankSlate end end For a start the method as equal? means a.object_id == b.object_id Getting rid of it seems a mistake Further the Object.eql? and Object.== are both Object.equal? and the former two are often redefined at children of object. Secondly,Within if defined? ::BasicObject ::BasicObject seems to be an attempt to refers to constant in Object::BasicObject because if ActiveSupport::BasicObject does not seem intelligent. The person who is altering the same module already knows whether a constant called ::BasicObject is defined at this same lexical level as the module as ActiveSupport. Using explicit namespace would avoid my confusion. Are trying to decide whether ActiveSupport::BasicObject is already defined? I presume not. So assuming that we are trying to discover whether there is a constant called ::BasicSupport which refers to an instance of the class as BasicObject, which is only within ruby 1.9 and not 1.8 From outside of a class and within a module the method as self.ancestor needs to be used so to discover constants within are inside of the scope of the object as Object, such as Object::BasicObject , and to discover constants within are inside of the scope of the object as BasicObject, such as BasicObject::BasicObject the method as Object.ancestors is required. When we do this class ActiveSupport::BasicObject < ::BasicObject end we can find a constant called BasicObject with the top level scope of Object, which is Object::BasicObject because this is referenced within the definition of a class and this *will* check the top-level scope without having to make an explicit call to self.ancestors, even though this class definition is made within a module. So if the constant as Object::BasicOject is a constant which refers to an object which is an instance of the class as BasicObject we have bypassed the class as Object Is this correct? Where have the comparable methods gone? Are those mixed in at the level of BasicObject. I don't know the answer at present. What do you think? Am I wrong? I am new to ruby. I read the O'Reilly book this summer learnt this from this book. David Roderick
on 2008-10-08 16:15
on 2008-10-08 21:05
I'm afraid you're asking on the wrong mailing list. This one is for Ruby, the language itself. Rails is written in Ruby, but is such a substantial and complex project in its own right that there are other mailing lists and forums devoted to it.